High Court Dismisses Freemasons' Legal Challenge Against Met Police Declaration Rule
A High Court judge has dismissed a legal challenge brought by Freemasonry bodies against the Metropolitan Police's policy requiring officers and staff to declare membership. The challenge centred on the Met's rule that mandates disclosure of past or present affiliation with the Freemasons or any similar organisation characterised as hierarchical, with confidential membership and mutual support obligations.
Judge Upholds Policy as Proportionate and Legitimate
Mr Justice Chamberlain ruled that the Met's decision serves the legitimate aim of maintaining and enhancing public trust in policing and is proportionate. He stated that the policy is not discriminatory or "unduly stigmatising" against Freemasons, and the grounds for the legal challenge were not "reasonably arguable." The judge emphasised that transparency in policing is crucial for fostering confidence among the public.
Claimants Argued Policy Created a "Blacklist"
Claimants, including the United Grand Lodge of England, argued the policy created a "blacklist" and breached human rights, contending it unfairly targeted members. They asserted that such declarations could lead to discrimination and undermine the principles of fairness and privacy. However, the Met maintained the policy was necessary for public confidence, highlighting that about 400 Met officers and staff have already made declarations under the policy.
Background and Implications
The legal challenge was filed in response to the Met's ongoing efforts to ensure accountability and transparency within its ranks. The policy aims to address concerns about potential conflicts of interest or biases that might arise from membership in secretive organisations. By requiring declarations, the Met seeks to uphold ethical standards and prevent any perception of impropriety.
This ruling sets a precedent for other police forces considering similar measures, reinforcing the balance between individual rights and public interest in policing integrity. It underscores the judiciary's support for policies that enhance trust without unduly penalising lawful associations.
